A judge's lot is not always a happy one

Legal reforms have vastly increased the judiciary's workload, the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, tells the Lord Mayor's Banquet at Mansion House, London

It is my belief that the stresses on members of the judiciary are greater today than they have ever been. In addition, their responsibilities are greater than ever before. The extraordinary amount of work that the judiciary performs, beyond ordinary court commitments, should be more widely known.

It is my belief that the stresses on members of the judiciary are greater today than they have ever been. In addition, their responsibilities are greater than ever before. The extraordinary amount of work that the judiciary performs, beyond ordinary court commitments, should be more widely known.

The Court Service provides, often with inadequate resources, support for the judiciary of a higher quality than ever before. However the system only works as well as it does because of a huge administrative input provided, out of court time, by an ever-increasing number of judges. The work is performed without a reduction in court sitting, with little or no clerical support and usually without any additional financial reward.

A judge wrote to me on his retirement, having served for a particularly long period as a resident judge, listing the catalogue of duties he performs. Regularly, he was engaged for two hours in the morning and two hours after dinner on administrative activities with no clerical support. He was not complaining. He just wanted me to know what was involved in running a successful court centre.

He explained, and I quote: "To a real degree, the job of a resident judge can be frustrating, dispiriting and lonely." To avoid children waiting for cases to be heard, he gave up more than six weeks' holiday in one year. He finishes his letter, however by explaining why (in his words) "there have been times when I have felt immensely privileged to have been resident judge," and he gave as an example helping initiate a scheme for diverting young offenders. This is not by any means an isolated example.

The JSB has grown from small beginnings into a highly sophisticated operation. The training provided prior to the introduction of the Family legislation, the new Civil Procedure Rules and, currently, the Human Rights Act has been most impressive. In each case it has been critical to the successful implementation of the reforms. This has, however, once again involved a substantial additional workload.

A feature of the civil procedural reforms has been the need for case management. As far as I am aware, judges are agreed that it works well, but involves substantial extra work in the form of pre-reading out of court. To prepare for the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the Crown Office (about to become the Administrative Court) is conducting a successful blitz to reduce lead times. Again this will lead to extra work

The reforms of civil appeals have received less attention, but the benefits have been significant. However, the virtually universal requirement of permission, and the fact that each area of litigation has a supervising Lord Justice, means that there has been an increase in the volume of work that each appellate judge performs.

In the Court of Appeal, there is some extra help in the form of judicial assistants. The scheme is a success. It provides, at very modest salaries, young lawyers of the highest calibre. But again it involves judicial input. I would single out for attention in this respect the work of Lord Justice Otton.

I regard the response from the judiciary as magnificent. Thanks to its willingness to embrace the new culture, and the unstinting efforts of all involved, including court staff, civil justice is under better control, with shorter timescales and more restricted costs, then ever before.

But can the judges maintain the tempo? I answer "yes", but only if they are provided, as they have been promised, with more support, including additional IT. Subject to this being available, I am sure that progress will continue. Everyone wishes to work in a legal system that is progressive and striving to meet the needs of the public.

I have high expectations of Robin Auld's report. However, the time taken before criminal appeals are heard is already acceptable. The average time that elapses before the hearing of an appeal, in the absence of urgency, is five months for appeals against sentence and eight months for appeals against convictions.

The major challenge is to improve the way we treat those caught up in the criminal justice system other than as defendants. The public's confidence in the system needs to be increased. Too many people who are involved as victims, witnesses or jurors are frustrated by the experience. Instead of being ambassadors for the system, they emerge as disgruntled detractors.

In the case of victims, without giving them the role of prosecutors, we have to ensure that their voice is heard. In any crime where a member of the public suffers harm, the court needs to be informed of the effect on the victim. This should be the routine responsibility of the prosecution, which must also play a more active part in correcting misinformation provided by the defence, and assisting the judge on sentence. But we do not want prosecutors to become persecutors.

We have to be careful not to prolong or delay hearings unnecessarily. There is, however, a need to achieve a more balanced approach. Justice to the defendant need not involve injustice for the prosecution.

Equally important is how we treat witnesses and jurors. The key to treating them better is for cases to run on time, otherwise it is inevitable that they will be inconvenienced. Judges have to make it clear that they will not tolerate shoddy preparation, which results in adjournments and delay. If lawyers are involved in agreeing timetables, they can usually be kept. This is better for everyone in the courts, including the lawyers. Proportionate justice is needed and should be achievable in the criminal system as well as the civil. You can tinker with the system, introducing this new offence or that procedure, but if you want to bring about real change in the system you must look at it as a whole.